Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[Janic]

The most funny thing is that GF invokes the work of Senff and Samsel as scientific justification for their hypothesis, except that since this work has been demolished in good and good shape by 2 members of CRIIGEN who are not suspected of collusion ;-) → https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/

you should, as usual, read more slowly to understand each part:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/

The effects of glyphosate are well characterized at the concentrations and doses leading to acute toxicity, the results increasing over time and in a dose-dependent manner. The toxic effects on rat liver, measured after the administration of 60 mg / kg of body weight / day of glyphosate over 2 years, were used as a basis for the calculation of the admissible daily dose (0,3 mg / kg bw / day) 2002-2017 (4).However, data regarding the health risks arising ingestion of glyphosate alone at daily doses lower than the authorized regulatory daily dose and which are relevant to human exposure levels are much more limited and the subject of much debate
and especially:
Although there is evidence that glyphosate herbicides are toxic below regulatory safety limits,

[izentrop]

Janic, what you are quoting is part of the controversy and the people of CRIIGEN are nonetheless anti-GMO activists.

Macron reassured farmers in GBA

"With regard to the remaining dead ends, notably for soil conservation agriculture or sloping crops, we will mobilize research to find alternatives with a simple principle: I will never impose an exit if there is no is no credible alternative " https://agriculture-de-conservation.com ... onnue.html

[Ahmed]

That is true, Janic, you should make an effort and find pro-GMO researchers who publish unfavorable results for glyphosate!

[izentrop]

Ahmed, you mean that all research is biased. this is true in a sense because it takes money and a sponsor, despite everything the majority of researchers is honest and honest with the results.
In the case of CRIIGEN, their interest is to look for the little beast that could harm GMOs and from time to time, a lost sheep like Séralini or the 2 researchers previously denounced, are zealous.
Of course in the press, from time to time, comes out an extraordinary discovery with a hidden goal of finding a patron.
Some will also seek to hide results contrary to the request of a sponsor or the sponsors themselves, but independent agencies and the reading communities are there to put all this in order.

[Ahmed]

Yes, there are big financial issues and they are rather on the side of large groups, this is what I just note. As for the dangerousness of glyphosate and what is linked to it, there is no need for scientific reports to understand that making a good part of world food depend on the interests of a private group (whatever it is), independent of all democratic control poses a problem. Things are clear: the biggest risk is political, the rest is a bit secondary; such power is not tolerable.

[izentrop]

As for the dangerousness of glyphosate and what is linked to it, there is no need for scientific reports to understand that making a good part of world food depend on the interests of a private group (whatever it is), independent of all democratic control poses a problem.

Your deduction is not established

Over 300 glyphosate weed killers marketed by more than 40 different companies are currently registered for sale in Europe. Glyphosate is produced by at least 91 manufacturers in fifty countries. Producers are most numerous in China: 53 in China, 9 in India, 5 in the USA. https://www.enviscope.com/agriculture/g ... dial/34908

[Ahmed]

If we are only talking about glyphosate, it is true, since the patent has fallen into the public domain, this is the reason why I specified: "As for the dangerousness of glyphosate and what is related to it..."
That is, the cultivation of transgenic plants resistant to glyphosate; it is a question of considering the global cultural system and not one of its parts. Monsanto's genius is always to manage to control the "taps" more than the contents of the pipes, it is surely a very good commercial tactic, but who can believe that private interests can miraculously coincide with the general interest ?

[izentrop]

You must stop the fixette on the roundup ready. It's ancient history, the techniques have evolved since then.

[Janic]

That is, the cultivation of transgenic plants resistant to glyphosate; it is a question of considering the global cultural system and not one of its parts. Monsanto's genius is always to manage to control the "taps" more than the contents of the pipes, it is surely a very good commercial tactic, but who can believe that private interests can miraculously coincide with general interest?

+10
I could not have said it better!

Ahmed, you mean that all research is biased. it's true in a sense because it takes money and a sponsor, despite everything the majority of the researchers is honest and honest with the results.

what is an honest and honest researcher? The inventors of nuclear bombs or not, those who developed anti-personnel mines, napalm bombs, DDT, asbestos, etc ... even the Nazis: all were honest and honest ... with their ideology; but is it enough?

[Ahmed]

Izentrop, you write:

It is (the round up ready) of ancient history, the techniques have evolved since then.

Probably, but the tactic remains the same and aims to control the living in this crucial area of ​​human nutrition.

Janic, you write:

The inventors of nuclear bombs or not, those who developed anti-personnel mines, napalm bombs, DDT, asbestos, etc ... even the Nazis: all were honest and honest ... with their ideology; but is it enough?

This inspires two comments:
- Beyond the apparent ideological differences, a super-ideology brought together these researchers: mimetic competition, fascination for the means (without consideration for the ends), social recognition ...
- Downstream of these researchers, many were those who worked without being aware of what they were doing, due to the division of labor and the resulting abstraction *. Hannah Arendt spoke, on this subject, of the banality of evil when it is integrated into a social process in which everyone has only a small share of responsibility which exempts him from any feeling of guilt.

* The abstract value resulting from the manufacture of an explosive mine or a toy is completely indifferent to the nature of the production (hence its qualifier of abstract). Overall, it will be a question of choosing which of these two activities is the most profitable according to the circumstances: ultimately, it is the market that decides (hence the feeling of not guilty).

PS: little anecdote from the time when Charlie Hebdo had a really critical content (it does not rejuvenate us!). A very ironic and very relevant drawing of Wolinsky (?) represented a demonstration of French arms workers at the time of the Vietnam War, brandishing placards demanding a wage premium for "crisis of conscience"!